|
|
Post by InvisibleWolfMan on Mar 19, 2008 22:45:49 GMT 2
 AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by The Curmudgeon on Mar 19, 2008 23:06:56 GMT 2
Oh no.
No.
NO!!!
Please don't tell me they're doing a sequel.
Please don't tell me they're doing a remake.
PLEASE.
|
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin Haines on Mar 19, 2008 23:12:02 GMT 2
Oh no. No. NO!!! Please don't tell me they're doing a sequel. Please don't tell me they're doing a remake. PLEASE. It's a remake, and it's being directed by Joe Johnston, the guy who made the lackluster Jurassic Park III. (link) |
|
|
|
Post by The Curmudgeon on Mar 20, 2008 1:30:41 GMT 2
Hmmmm, and what do we think of THAT news, Darth?  Yup. Couldn't put it better myself. |
|
|
|
Post by InvisibleWolfMan on Mar 20, 2008 12:25:33 GMT 2
The Curmudgeon, You do know that it's THIS one:  that is getting remade and NOT this one:  RIGHT?  This is more a "reboot" alá 2006's CASINO ROYALE rather than a remake alá 2003's TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. I used the "Beware The Moon" reference since Rick Baker did the makeup for AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON and is now doing the same for THE WOLF MAN reboot. Let's hope it ushers in a modern twist on the classic Universal Monsters (THE MUMMY, you say? And who's this Stephen Sommers you're babbling about like a toddler who got his candy stolen?)!  |
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin Haines on Mar 20, 2008 13:25:13 GMT 2
Let's hope it ushers in a modern twist on the classic Universal Monsters That is exactly what's going on. Universal have stated that they plan to remake all of their classic monster movies ( Wolf Man and Creature from the Black Lagoon are already underway), and I think it's a terrible idea. I say leave these classics alone. Dracula and Frankenstein especially have been done to death again and again for many decades now, and no subsequent interpretation has ever managed to come close to the originals. Why even bother? |
|
|
|
Post by InvisibleWolfMan on Mar 20, 2008 17:56:32 GMT 2
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the Classic Universal Monsters. Wouldn't even piss in the remote general direction of nearly most of the "reimaginings" and "modern remakes" thus far. That being said, I would really like to see a "back to basics" approach with these type of horror films. I'm sick of seeing "slasher" flicks....SICK! Although the original director for this quit, I hope that they'll stick with most of his plans. They were very promising. Hiring Rick Baker to do the makeup was the best thing they could've done. If the executives learn to trust the material into the right hands, instead of "screening it to death by Scum-feedback" then we should be entering a new phase. I hope more of a THE FLY remake luck with this rather than the luck that followed Peter Jackson's KING KONG. Hell, so long as they don't aim for the teeny boppers:  then I'll give it a go! Oh, and I love the more revealing picture on page two of the EW article you linked to! |
|
|
|
Post by The Curmudgeon on Mar 21, 2008 0:08:29 GMT 2
Wolfman? Honestly, what was I thinking when I figured you were talking about American Werewolf in London? When you title your thread with the most famous line from that film, THEN show a "new and improved" werewolf shot?
Oh, of course - you're talking about The Wolf Man, because the guy who did the make-up for London is doing the make-up for this. Of course. Totally obvious.
Anyway, I am SICK of remakes. Absolutely fucking pig-sick. GET SOME NEW IDEAS. MAKE NEW MONSTERS. CREATE NEW FRANCHISES. Lazy bastards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin Haines on Mar 21, 2008 2:59:53 GMT 2
Anyway, I am SICK of remakes. Absolutely fucking pig-sick. GET SOME NEW IDEAS. MAKE NEW MONSTERS. CREATE NEW FRANCHISES. Lazy bastards. Agreed. The occasional remake can be worthwhile, but most of them are either a waste of time or downright awful (or both, more often than not). The '80s versions of The Fly and The Thing and the '00s versions of War of the Worlds and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory aren't remakes of the films before them, they're new, direct adaptations of the books which inspired the older films in the first place. I don't mind that, and I don't mind a remake of an older film if it's done very well, respectful to the source material, and unique enough in itself to be worth making in the first place. That's a very hard balance to strike. While I enjoyed the 1998 version of The Mummy as popcorn entertainment and it was unique on its own, I would hardly call it a quality film. The only remakes I can really think of which managed to pull off that necessary balance were the recent remakes of The Manchurian Candidate, The Departed, and the 2005 King Kong. Of course, even then, we've got the 1976 King Kong to remind us how a remake can just as easily fall flat. Here's a list of some of the remakes that are currently in the Hollywood production pipeline: [/i] Seven SamuraiRosemary's BabySuspiriaPiranhaAttack of the Killer Tomatoes (seriously) Day of the DeadThe Evil DeadFriday the 13thScannersEscape From New YorkLast House on the LeftHellraiserA Nightmare on Elm StreetThe BroodHeavy MetalClash of the TitansShockerRobocopCreepshowProm NightShiversCreature from the Black Lagoon[/ul] Now really, how many of those remakes are really likely to be anything worthwhile, especially considering that 99% of remakes really aren't? Oh, and guess what? Michael Bay's production company (the same company that cranked out the remakes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Amityville Horror) are behind the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street. You know what else? Robert Englund has been confirmed as NOT playing Freddy Krueger. There have also been talks about Alien being remade, and I'd say it's only a matter of time before a studio decides to redo Jaws. Hollywood really is in a terrible state right now. |
|
|
|
Post by trashcanman on Mar 21, 2008 10:43:08 GMT 2
"Seven Samurai"?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! Not after that awful "Zatoichi" remake. And "Suspiria"? I hope the person who even suggested it dies a horrible, horrible death.... just so I can dig him up and piss on his corpse. "Clash of the Titans" could be brilliant with the right director. There's also a "Barbarella" remake in the works, possibly directed by Robert Rodriguez which will be the only way I will watch it. The rest I'm more or less indifferent to, but will most likely skip on basic principle. Except for "Rosemary's Baby", who Michael Bay of all people has been eyeing. Imagine this, if you would: Rosemary gets up and gazes at her baby, gasping. Then the demonic CG infant flies out of the bassinet and grows to enormous proportions rampaging throught the city, burning everything in sight with his laser eyebeams. 50 Cent (who played the husband) runs out and stares at the monstrosity shouting, "Yo, son, peep dem eyes! What's up wit' doze EEEEYYYEEEEESSSSSS!!!!!" You know Bay would go there. And a CG Satan rape scene? 'Nuff said.
|
|
|
|
Post by InvisibleWolfMan on Mar 21, 2008 11:24:11 GMT 2
The Curmudgeon, I gave the because I obviously forgot to mention that is was THE WOLF MAN being remade and Rick Baker was doing the makeup within the first post. I've always felt that THE WOLF MAN left quite an inspiring mark upon John Landis (which I'm sure he'd agree to)and Rick Baker. I thought you might have been able to tell since the picture is more of a "Man with lots of hair and some fangs" (which The Wolf Man makeup is) instead of "Man changing into a real wolf" like AMERICAN WEREWOLF is. Hell, rip out the descriptive details of AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON and you have the same basic elements as THE WOLF MAN. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF is a remake of THE WOLF MAN, but done in a new way while true to the source material. Same for THE FLY and CHARLIE & THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY. Loads of movies have already been remade. SEVEN SAMURAI? Magnificent Seven. YOJIMBO? A Fistful Of Dollars, Last Man Standing. LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (itself a remake of A VIRGIN SPRING)? Chaos. Star Wars (Ep. IV for you out there) is riddled with nothing but stuff Lucas copied from literary works, favorite films and Japanese culture. And my point in all of this is that: So long as they are true to the source material, I am rooting for this. |
|
|
|
Post by Benjamin Haines on Mar 22, 2008 0:40:51 GMT 2
SEVEN SAMURAI? Magnificent Seven. And Pixar's A Bug's Life. Staying true to the source material isn't all that's necessary in making a good remake. Hell, I don't think anybody could argue that the Psycho remake was true to its source, but it lacked any creativity or unique element in itself to be worthwhile. I'll be seeing the Wolf Man remake, and I hope I'm pleasantly surprised, but right now my expectations are very cautiously low. Mark Romaneck (an actual good director) dropped out of the project due to creative differences which the studio wasn't willing to budge on. So obviously whatever they're planning to do with this remake was enough to make Romaneck want nothing to do with it, and now Joe Johnston is the one pushing it along. |
|
|
|
Post by InvisibleWolfMan on Mar 22, 2008 16:34:13 GMT 2
I actually feel that the PSYCHO remake wasn't true to the source material. If it had been, it would've taken what already existed and moved it forward in a slightly different direction. Everyone here who has seen it can readily agree it was nothing else but a modern photocopy of the original, which is why it lacked any creativity or unique element in itself to be worthwhile. A travesty that merely waited to occur. And you're more than right about it taking more than "staying true to the source material" to make a good movie. Peter Jackson's KING KONG may not be the train wreck that Dino's 1976 version turned out to be, but why did I feel ultimately that it was THIS close to edging it out? Probably because, like Dino's version, Peter spent too much time telling unnecessary story details that basically went either short distances or nowhere. You need to move a story like KING KONG along, not spend long, drawn out moments in JURASSIC PARK or recreating a long lost sequence that ultimately didn't seem to help anyways. And Carl Denham was totally wrong in Peter's version. There wasn't even a character arc for him, he started out a liar, he ended up a liar. Depressing.
On a side note, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON is a remake of KING KONG. And it works on the right levels that some of the other remakes we've already mentioned works.
I'm hoping that THE WOLF MAN remake will eventually pull through, despite the fact that Mark Romaneck dropped out due to disagreements with Universal. Time will tell, just as it always does.
|
|
|
|
Post by trashcanman on Mar 23, 2008 9:20:49 GMT 2
There is a diffeenct between a remake and a rip-off, WolfMan. Those westerns you mentioned are rip-offs. Back in the day it was all "America won't pay to sit down and watch a bunch of dirty Japs wave swords around. And having to READ the dialogue...oh the humanity! But what a great story. Hey, I've got it: reshoot the film with white actors and make it a western! Americans love guns and cowboys! Down with culture and originality, up with xenophobia and consumerism!"
Nowadays it's more like "Americans aren't going to pay to sit and watch a bunch of Asians get scared. And who reads these days, anyway? I go to the movies to not have to think. Reading is like the next worst thing! But horror films sure are making a lot of money; even the awful ones. Especially the awful ones. Especially the awful ones that are remakes. Hey, I know. Let's remake the film with an all white cast and make it as much of a piece of shit as we can. Where's Jessica Alba's phone number?"
Who says we haven't made any progress?
|
|
.jpeg)
This is more a "reboot" alá 2006's CASINO ROYALE rather than a remake alá 2003's TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. I used the "Beware The Moon" reference since Rick Baker did the makeup for AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON and is now doing the same for THE WOLF MAN reboot.
May 4, 2013 18:47:55 GMT 2
May 4, 2013 18:47:55 GMT 2
